The Sun. — London, England, 1808-07-06 00:00:00

L'llf REPORT. COURT OFKING's BENCH, IcLY• s. NEWcPAPER. PROPRIETORS, &c. The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL muted .the judgment of the Court on the Proprietors, Printers, and Pub lichers of the several Newspaper ' following :—The Monthig - Herald,The London Packet, 'Lives Even ing Post, ThePhtlic Ledger, and the &let:icy, for .haying published the folloy,ing paragraph in the month of January last, whicli wade its first appear ; anee.in the Morning Herald, and from thence was col ied into the oth...:r Newspapers. . , `•The late extr_iotdirtary acquittal of‘the Slave Ship Cap- . tain, at the Admiralty Sessions, %%a.; the subject ot.general • astonishment. It eleven tutors mit- of twelve, after con : tmuingto consult for six hours; determent; to thid the Pri soner guilty, return into Court with a•verdiel of acquittal in compliance wittj the single obstinacy of the twelfth, Irma) , be well to know whet lier.such a verdict is not what is usually denominated Perjury, or not." • The following Defendants then appeared in Court • Thomas Glassington, Publisher ; John Walter and Thomas Hurl ton, Principal Proprietor; and U. Brown,• Printer, of the Morning Herald.—John Crowder, Printer; Richard WinStauley and William Fadeu, Proprietors,. of the Public Ledger.—Charles Spilsbury and Joseph Lowe, Proprietors of Lloyd's Evening Post.—Cnarles Dilly and John Ferriday, vo.loSe interest in Newspapers we did not h ear .•—•• • Thomas Chapman, Sole Proprietor of the Traveller. And Mary Vint; Sole Proprietor of the SeleCtor. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that these • Defendants stood in, a very tido cot situation from ' that of other Defendants who had lately been before - the Court (the Proprietor and Publisher of the WltiO, who had' o,h4tinately persevered to the last is th6r miscOnduel, but had'fallen into the error , for which they were now brought up for judgment, by inadvertency ; and they.appeared :to have . aCted afierWards with as much propriety as they could, for they had all suffered j'idgment to go against them by default ; and they had in their affidavits circumstances tending to chew that they had but • little•share in thereat guilt which had been so ju s tly imputed to others who had been lately before the Court ; so that he had no objection to their Lord , - . ships considering in the most favourable light every thing that could be urged in their defence: Tue affidavits on -behalf of the diffetent Defend ants- were. then lead; by which it appeared that the obnoxious paragra.ph appeared first in the • Morning. Herald, and thence was inadvertently co .. pied into the other Papers ;• that a few days after wards other paragraphs tot .a similar tendency had been left in the box at the office of that Paper, which the Conduaors were so far from having insetted, that they published another, stating that too much had been unwarrautaply said on that subject already ; and this before any prosecution had been threatened,. or any complaint made on account of the obnoxious paragraph in question. Mr. MARRYATT addressed the Court on the part of the Proprietors, Publisher, and Printer, •of the Morning Herald. Mr. DAMPIER, for Mr. Crowder. Mr. • SCAULETT, for Mr. Win,tanley and Mr. Fa den. Mr. LE' Bt. ti for the same Parties. Mr. TAUNTON, for Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Poonsv„ for Mr. Chapman. Mr. Ds:Nark:a, fur Vint ; also Another Gentleman at the bar, Whose name we could not collect, for the other Defendants. The ATTORNEY-GUNLIAL made a short, reply, the substance of which was to observe - , that the main object was to check, 'at its comtneneement; this evil ot shoitiering Judges and. Juries in,the dis coarge of their dtities in the , :dministration of justice, and to pintect them in the thscharge of that &iv ; for which purpose he brought before • the Court all the partie, concerned in the publication of the late slander upon them in that respea: He knew no bmer proof of that objet being to aconside‘rable ex tent obtained, than'by having produced the affidavits. of these DlendantS, by which they, all disavowed the sentioients, conveyed by the paragraph Complained of, which they had only inserted from inadvertency. They would, however, not dorget, that they were criminally responsible for whatever appeared of a li belldas nature in.:their publi cat i ons. He had no wish to presi for any severity . of.punishment against these Defendants; on the contrary, lie wished the • Court to give as favourable, an attention to the cir cumstances:of mitigation as the nature Of this case • would admit. . The Court having consulted Mr. Justice GitUSE delivered Judgmont.—He ' observed,that the Defendants, antheach of them, having offended the Law, stood for the punishment of the Law ; but he was gratified in being able to notice,.that they were not ob , tinate and unrepenting offi:ntlers„ persevering in a repetition of crimes, such as had lately ttl,peared before the Court, convicted of the same species of offence, and who had received that sort of punishment which Was necessary as an - example to prevent a repetitihn of the like offence. The-offence called for some ,comment :7-They, as " Proprietors, Printers, and Publishers of Newvapers, had ihserted this paragraph, refit:Cling on the MEM - ni,,ratibn of Justice in this Country, and also against a Jury of the . Country acting in the discharge of the • Most paitifui duty—a -duty cast :upon them in the trial of a man indiated for the :crime of murder, Whom they had acquitted, and who, , after that acquittal, was to be treated as an innocent man. Sutra.? persons,. however, had thought fit to arraign ' the conduct of the Jury ,on that occasion, and had framed a paragraph tending to bring them into hatred and contempt, by insinuating that the person so - tried was unduly, . wrongfully, and improperly acquitted ; and to traduce and vilify the Jury who g.,vc 4j,at.verdia. 7 -•The learned Judge read the pa ragraph in question, and observed that those - who abdsc.l the Libel - 1y of tore Press were the most f0r %,,r,1 to affect a lure fur its ,Lillerty ; but none were so much its foes as those who indulged in .its lieen- I , ; , ;I, , ; and hew idled the Proprietors, Printers, I ,:'. , ,;,leis of Newspapers to remember, 'that, they were by no means as guilty as the Auttit;:s of ..Scandaloos Libels, yet that the poison - conld never have its ettectl.vittiout their assista n ce ; anti that it was.the ditty of every subjeel to take cart. that he lent IJO aid to the mischief:Taking all the cir cimwances of this case into consideration, the Courcr did order and adjudge, Flint the Defendant Crowder (who appeared to be Proprietor of two Papers), be fined 501. and the other Defendants 23 . 1. each ;. which being paid, immediately - by their Agents in Court, they retired. THE KING V. EDWARD HAWKINS, ESQ. CLAIMING TO BE AN ALDERMAN OP THE BOROUGH OF SALTASH. The Conrt, after stating the Charter, th e Manda `mus for the el e ctiO n of ad Alderman, the ineligibility vf'the Defehdani, as insisted upon by Mr. Carpenter, the Annual Indemnity ACt, the special verdiat found ,by• the Jury at the last ,Assizes for Cornwall, and a variety: of cases bearing upon the points contended for by the parties, gave judgment of ouster against the. Defendant . ; the consequence' of which is, that Captain Spicer, th'eother Candidate for the office, is the legal Alderman. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. Mr. TOPPlNG•applied for leave to fife a Criminal Inforthation against Geo. Forrester, Esq. a Gentle man not unknown in our Courts. The motion was made upon the affidavits of the Rev. Mr. Wardel, who had been joint -tenant with the Defendant 01 a manor in Worcestershire. This instrument stated; that some time since,' Mr. Wardel proposed to sell his share to Mr. Forrester, who agreed to pay him 1:4- it tip: sum of 16,0601. Subsequent to this contract diiptites arose respealitig the payment, when Mr. Wardel was compelled to'file a bill irr the Exche quer, and in March last he obtained a decree,order ing the discharge of the debt by Mr. Forrester. After. this, Mr. F. appearecLin church, while the Prosecutor was performing Divine Service, and insulted him, by making,gritna::es at him, in the view of the whole congregation. Mr. Wardel th2n went to Loildn, and., during his absence, Mr. Forrester .having the. whole manor under his : controul, attended by one of the Churchwardens, ,of, the name Of Bayles, Who was entirely deVoted to his interets, and ationt thirty persons, with ribbons in their hats, on the 19th of March, issued from, his d.vrt house, proceeded to the Church,, broke open, the door, and, by means. of new ropes (1.14 r. Wardell having directed the old ones to be removed), and the ringers of a otignbour ing parish, sounded a merryseal,, in triumph of a supposed . victory obtained oltr the Reverend der gymati. It was bete, amid this digusting sceneof protanAtion-and riot• id the Church, • that Mr. 'For rester'prulled a paper from his pocket, and read the following .passage 'to the disorderly assembly " Scrul.7(meaning the PrOsecutor) .was.bitried on Monday, at Worcester," alluding to the period when Mr. Wardel kid signed the deeds of conveyance of the manor to the Defendant. A day or two after Mr. Foirestry had thus wantonly expressed his satisfaClion, lie procured a painter, named Hickey, to inscribe on the walls. of the parish - church, various . passdges - from . Scripture, the tendency of .which was either to expose . Mr. Wardel to derisien, or to hold himself up to admiration. One of these was taken from the Gospelnf St. Luke; " My ' house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves." Atiother was taken 11:otn the Psalms : " 'Thine hand, shall find out all thine ene mies; thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee 3 " besitlei .many more vt .the same 'description. Soon afterwards Alt. Wardeireturned, and when he was sitting at the desk, ,in the church, on. Whi tsunday,, Mr. Forrester came close u p to hi m, and read- in a loud voice one of the passages which he. had procured to be. Painted upon the walls'; thus personaliy insulting, the,Reverend Clergyman in the exercise of his tunetions, and interrupting the per formance of the sacred duties of the day. The mo tion of the Learned Counsel was not confined to Mr, Forrester alone, but extended to Mr. Bayles, the Churchwarden, who had been appointed by him, and two persons who were principally aaive 'during the riot in the church, on the 19th of March, including also Hickey, the person who had been employed to deface the church walls. —Rule gninted. •-• • THE KING V. WILLIAM BRYANT. • The Defendant was brought up to plead to an at tachment for not paying costs of a suit pursuant to the Master's 'allocation. Mr:Bryant appeared •on the floor of the Court, and requested to be heard. - He said, that this pro ceeding arose out of an a6lit brought against him by a persodof the name of Dixon. It had been ap pointed by the Plaintiff for a Special Jury, but it was referred before the trial took place, consequently be fore the Judge could certify whether the costs of the Special Jury should be allowed. _Afterwards, when the costs were taxed by, the Master, he, Mr. Bryant,' refused to pay the additional charge of the Spe c i,d Jury, alleging that it had been appointed by the Plaintiff. He this day resisted the attachment,upon the 'Statutes of 3 and 24 Geo. 11. insisting- that 18 guineas, the additional costs, could not, according to the law -then enacted, be justly required. The Court concurred in the opinion cxprel.srd 'by Lord MANSFIELD, in an anonymous ca n e, When it was determined,' that where a reterevice of a Special Jury cause took place before th e v er dict was given; it was implied that each party conseat'ed to pay its share of the additional costs. DOCTORS' COMMONS, I VLY 5. BAZETT AGAINST BAZETT. This• was a suit of divorce, or• 'separation, from . bed, board, . and mutual cohabitation, instituted by Richard Campbell Bazett, Esq. .against Margaret Ann Hazett,- his wife, bylreasonof adult e ry, a I.2dged to have been commited with Frederi c k Dizi, a per tOriner on the harp, at the Opera-house. From the. pleadings in the cause it appeared that the mart - Lige between the parties took place in the summer of vhe year 17 9 0, at. Calcutta, in the East Indies, where they cohabited and lived together as.tuan and wife—that on , their return to England they w;ent and resided in York-place; Krtland-iquare, wher.: they continued to live. together in a, reasonable de gree of harmony till I SOU, when Mr. Bazett observ ing some improper conduct in his wife, words arose between them, and Mrs. Bazett, on the follow ng year, quitted her husband's house, and went and lived in Park-lane, with an allowance granted by Mr. Bazotet of 6001. a year —at which re idence it wai d6posed to by ed several witness es produc that the alleged adultery took place; and t h e Material Ca'ts•a;:peared to be these :—That Mr. Dizi fre_ quently visited Mrs. Bazett, and soutetiine s staid quer, neither the Defenlants nor their Creditors would beat 'all prejudiced. COURT OF commi)N ii:Ly S. ARNEtTE V. ANI:JERSON: This Was - a niotfon to set aside the nonsuit, and tc enter a yeidia for the Plai nt iff. Jr teas an actiolkon . an.agreetnent relating t o the. of a bon-e at Gar raway's: it appeared that the i)retniseS'hi question,. narnely, the Rodnek's Head Public-house, in 'Old street Poad, were put lip to auttier4 . and she Piain tiff bought the same fdr 6401. lie paid 501. as 0, part of the purchase btit he did nut after wards obtain possessio n Of the prernise,s. The re-, ceipt of the Auctioneer for 501: v,;fs FrOciiiCed at tl-1(-: trial.; but it was obje:ted as not 1 ein, - 4v . ideiy.le. under the Statute of Frauds. it was also that there Was co proof of the conditions ot . sate which the receipt applied, and under all the circum stances the ,Plaintiff was .nonsuited. It was con 7• tended in support • of the present . t ri c ,ti o n, th a t the: : receipt for the sftl. was evidence of the agreement of sale, and that the signature. of. the .A.,Mioneer,' Who had deseeibed the houSe sold in die fet'eipil; was sufficient' to take the - case otito . of the Statute . of Frauds. The court granted a Rule to shew The most recent advices trom St. Petersburgh,,by the way ot:Gottenlanrgh, mention that a great. altera tion had taken place in the disposition. of the Rns sian Cabinet. His IS.trEtti .MAJESTY WaS Saki to be - fully apprised of the designs of ilt:o'sArAßTE Ito dethrone the BouatloNs,.an4 place the Grown of Spain, upon ?pis own head or that of one of his family, and to- have expressed a stronga.trd marked inligna tion of the plan.. • A Messenger, Mr. Ross, set off on Fritlay morning, at. three,o'clock-, for St: Peters burgh,; Yr and we understand that he has orders to pro ceed afterwards to Vienna. • * A.sinaular instance of the sagacity of a New foundland dog , oecurred a few days since en the River :—As Mr. Cook, who keeps a Tavern in Cleveland-street, and a party of friends, Were return ing froth Richmond, where they had been spending the day, th boat upset a little below Kew-bridge, in consequence of Mr. C. (who is aT. very ocirpulent man) shifting from his side of the boat too suddenly. Having .a Newfoundland dog on board, the faithful animal immediately iJid : hold of his•master and took him on shore;and returned agaiii with astonishing speed to the boat, and continued to go backWard3 and forwards until he had reseued six men from their perilops situations in less than a quarter of an hour, to the admiration of a multitude of spectators' who had asseMbled on the bridge. Saturdai week a cow that had been wanionly provoked by some men near Lane-end„ Manchester, ran furiously into that place, attacked a young wo man, pent her against a wall, and forced one of its horns intd : her body, under the ribs; uu.til it came out at her shoulder, by.which she died almost in- Sei•eral children were gored 'by the same ►fitly. n!rn L r i' Thittcd o-M to O r rT % Oz io t u ll s e ;L p l fs o i tl o ie n s e i t t s l who stand the coL f o u n l t l i y oi c , o;p n County of Middlesex, will be removed to iiiepatatory to their taking 1.11,it - trials at tic Sessions, which commence at Justice Hall in the Old Bailey on Wednecday next, the I'34h inst. Yesterday some daring thieves cunt' ived, by means of a picklock; in the day time, to oin d i o cnt entrance at the front door of tne'house of Mr. Cliei:yn, its Kennington-lane, doring the absence of the and stoic 'therefrom a qu in thy of valuable . linen aria sundry other articles, m nL . which they gut 'off uu i•••• covered. S Ps) CRAVVSENO, rut? 4. Pissed by—,the Gnnhouse, Mary and Susan nah, thtrk, Syinfmtry, the n, Turocr, from I afilaica.. Siiled —the Lord Carrington, .Pennington, tier Matta; Am- Wiipite, Collins. for ; liov-rnor Millie, i'Lld(l}" Combe, and be DiAciern; Shutn, fot ILii Janeiro. 81R111.% LONDON y RICHARD HA R R 15, 01 Nu. 4, Martlett-court, Bow -street ; . and publishei by WILLIAM ARMIGER SCRIPPS, South MOttorl-Streer, Crosvenor-srptrei •At the SuN-01VICK No. 11,;.; Strand ; whereAdvotsements, Orders tor the Pater, I etters for s the (vost-paid) mug be addressed. On Saturday mor►iing*,.in 16sw,!il..court, Mrs. Peckham, of a Sop., • On Sunday last,. the Lady of the lion. and Rev. 'Thomas X." De G rey, at W incN'ster-1-1 ,use, Chelsea, of a Son. '''' t, he .:,ine 11'101'11111g, at Cl a 'man t, the 1„Itly of Christopher ,':• M T agrlay, Esq. ot a Son., ' '• • rr ii Inc 4tii inst. the La:ty of We Hon. General A .Ifuire, c':`'* • I. P. of a Son. „.= . . On Mondiy morn i ng, Mrs. Vetrc, wife of Mr. Geor,:e !•:, Bents, Toyrnan, Clianes-street,• Grosvenor square, of A Daughter. • 11•14RAIED.. . . • Yesterday, 'at - St. George's. lianover-square, by the. Lord ilisitop ut saiisbury, Charles Hui.se, L. et&st son ut Sir Uwarci Hulse, Bart. or Breamore-Hous,, in /I,e County ot . .. Hauts, to Miss Maria , Buller, secoal thughtor of the _ late. ~ John iliiller, Esq. of Mor va i , in t•t-4 Co.nity or C ornwa ll-. Lately., ,at. Gi.irunire Chut;:ri, in rue C4.uiliy of Cork fames Casey, .F sq . nißiossoni-grove, ixtue above C ounty► i to N.lis Chattetton, (laughter of the Lite Thomas Chatterton., Esq. . • - DIED. . . On Saturday evening, the ad inst: at her house in Upper' Croak-street, Mrs lssheltaTat,' agel $ 4 , tt mtglitet Of ---"` Pitt, Esq. formerly of Great flLtahogs, in SultOlk. Ott Monday, Mr. [tithes Brikes, of CeurgettoW, sey. aged • • - . . . The. same evening, in Cainberwell-grove, 'Mrs. A biktilr Scullard, retict , or illtam Scidiard, Esq. Yesterday, the infant sun of William Moore, Esq. of Doc • - tors' Commons. • • • . Lately, .Captain Campbell; formerly of the Regitnent of Highlanthrs. fie ...dos suppoSed to oe tile last surviyitt4;. ()dicer woo tut.xiit with Wolfe. Ott Monday the 20th.olt. at Cionakil:y, iu the County cf. Cork, Townseod Beaint;ii, -Esq. I.ately, at Enitiburgh, 'irs. Charlotte 'Wood, wife of Rollo , Cill,4ple i , Esq. and daughter of the deceased .bohn Wo - d , E ti.l. - 4are GoVernor of the !slept' Man. Last week, at iharty-House, Captain John Croft, ofthe- Royal Navy, son of Thomas Croft, Esq - of i'vfarwell Lodge , near Winchester. A - "short tune since, in the East Indies, Lieutenant Charley' Turner, of His Majesty's ship •Belltqueux, son of Mr . - -Charles Turner, of Mount-Hill House, koaester, who wa s stabbed by a person witt.p.in th e ad oeboarding an enemy'' 'Vessel, called a pros. On the 3chot September last, Mr. George Simps6n,, Lieu .tenatit of the Fox irigate, and second son of the Rev. I ana SiMpsoa, of Eon burgh. When Zal!atvly Leading 4 .. 7 '..boarding pa r ty i n t h e l a e terPrizeat Bapvia, he received i` 'musket bail i..tile ri2ek, a ci instantly expired. • • HIGH WATER AT LO R NI . R( v )N BRIDGE TO-1:10 11 .• Morning, 28 min. after i. i Afternoon, 57 min. after I. from Satur.lay night the Monday morning; that during these visits great familiarities were observed by the servants in the houseto pass between the iiarties; and also, that Mr. Vizi had been seen going in and coming oat of Mrs. iizett's bed-room hall undressed. The Court, after hearing the Coonsel on both -sides, was of opinion, that the effect of the evidence ,was sufficient to furnish that competent degree of proof as to induce the / Court to pronounce that the taki of.adv.ltery was proved, and accordingly decreel the remedy which the husband prayed. PRICE AG:tINST BOSWELL, FALSELY CALLING HER- SELF PRICE. This was a ease of nullity 4)1 ►itarriage, brought by the father, as guardian of Hubert Price, the husband. against Sarah Boswell, his wife, on the , ground .of minority. In this - case the evidence clercily established the 061, that the husband in question had only obtained -the age of rf when the marriage was celebrated; and, it was also fully proved that the same was had without the knowledge or consent of the father. The Court, therefore, without,any hesitation, pro- . flounced the marriage tu.be null and void. ABRAHAM AGAINTSVABRAHAM. Thi•was a , cause o divorce, or separation from bed, board, and noe ual cOliabitation, promoted-on the part of Thoma 4 Abraham, the husband, against , Susannah AbrahaM his wile, by reason of, adultery. It appeared • in this ease 4 , hat, , the marriage place between the parties at St. Maryls Church, Is lington ; that soon after Mr. Abraham had occa- - sion to go to Devonshire, i.e. .durin g - his absence Mrs. - Aur,diatti contri,ved -to introduce person as her uncle into the house, by the fictitious name of Mr. C. who turned oat to be a person of the name of Couli hard. ..The ta6ts of adultery being 'clearly established, the Cpurt pronounced the usual sentence of separa tion. - COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TULSDAY, JULY Se ASSESSED TAXES. PARRY V. HORNE, AN,D HANE.INS V. lIANLET. Thee were several penal 2ctions, brought under the late Aa,o - f Parliament, in s tit ute d . by th e P ar i s h of St. Luke, Oldstreet, against two of the Coliec tors.of Assessed Taxes in the said Park!), for making an exorbitant and excessive levy upon certain 'inha bitants of the said Parish, wherein verdicts of 001. had .14ee"n' obtained in 'eacli aEt on. Mr.WicLEY , on the .part- cf the Defendants, this day moved the Court ;to compound their'several ac tions, upon paymentofsol. and costs in each. • Mr. ABBOT, fir the Prosecution, stated, that these adions were brought by the Parish again4t the De fendants as collectors of assessed taxes, for grosi misconduct in the colleaion of those taxes; bur they having been since dismissed from office on tint ac c.ount, the justice of the case was fully answere I, and he had inttrOtions to content to th'e present :TO.. cation.. • The Court accordingly granted the Rule. TILE KING V. CAST - ELL AND POWELL. A motion was made in this ca s e to have a Writ Of Extent, faker) out against the Defendants, .fju .died. Mr. DAuNCEY, ow a I'm - mut - d a y, and Mr. ;:-.L.Tc;nr,s, and Mr. CAllti to-oy, avguvd. that the Writ o Ex tent was not supported by the affidavit on which it was granted. - That 7vas made by the Senior and Managing Clerk of Sir M. W. itidley and Co. who swore that the Defendants were indebt ed to the Crown to the extent ot Sum, however, the affidavit afterwards s' :wed had come into the hanis of the Delendams, th ough the house of Sir Mathew Witte Ridley, for wnom they acted .as general bankers in town„ without any knowledge on the part of the Defendants that the same arose from Government money : For, although the affidavit bore that the sums in question, atotig with a variety of other slims, ha. heenpai.l into the, house of Ridley and Co. in Newca.Ale, by Mr. Surtees, Receiver-Ueneral tor the County, and .had by them been transmitted to thelietcrdants, the. Agents of Ridley and Co.• in London, to be, through the Bank of England., paid into the receipt of his Majesty's Excheqder,. it wasno where stated, that it consisted with the. Defendant's knowledge that this was. the money of the Crown ; or that they accepted 'of it under. the burdens which attached to the hold ing,of public money. The.l,sarned Counsel 'quoted a number of cases to Spew i hat an immediate extent' Could not he , taken out, unless where it appeared that the; Defendant was privy to the fact: of the mo ney he held, or debt he owed,: being the property of the Crown.' It was an 'established .point, that the' Prerogative could not be used as a handle for the 're covery of 'a private. debt,. which, it was.. contended, was the case in the present . institnce. Mr. SOLICITOR G.F.NERAL CollZellded that it was the privilege of.th(--Cl'own to follow its - t,vn tponey, :and to demand restitotion of it from whatever hatick into rk tol, , viitch. it mi g ht' h ave f oun d i ts way. It wool & iculons to suppose, if. the Crown etiipiuyed a succession-of Messengers to carry its revenue to rite Exchequer, that„ in the event ot the. money not ul timately arriving there, -it could not apply for redress against the person who withheld it, cut must go through all the other persons to whom, in transit:l, it had been entrusted, before it could recover. I t was tio answer. to the pre-sent writ of extent to say, that, because an extent might have been taken out against Sir M. W. Ridley, and an extent •in aid thereof against the . Defendants, that therefore an ex tent rnigut not at once be taken out against the De ftehteu.icairl iwereHis Majesty y h hoe s e of t tile d p t r o o e p x r r e t r ) c r i c s l e f his discretion i n • t hi s respea, and the D e fe n d ants would not be prejudged, as they Might if thebyigit c t i r a a i s t . . l 7 o 3e f • bring -the case bef o re Jury, whee the Crown 'could not be made out, their deftnco wpuld avail them. It would, however, be peculiarly hard, by giving etfeCtJo the present motion, to pre clude the Crown from any inquiry into the right which it Court were asse of rted. uopinion, that the 2ffilavit was sufficient to support the-Wtit of Extent granted.v-- The meri's of the case, however, would remain en- • tire, and it the Plaintiticould not stiew, as-stated in - the affidavit, that the m oney and Co, to tbe;Defend w as p u bli c money, sent by Sir M. W. Ridley ' o ants, to be by th em paid, thronkh t h ey England, into the receipt of his Majesty's Exche.. st. ar. %wj l